US is ‘absolutely adamant’ that Palestine not go to ICC and wreck the peace process — Power

The US ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power testified on the Hill on April 2, and conservatives’ reports have emphasized her statement that it is not in the U.S. interest to defund UN organizations that accept Palestine as a state, despite a new US law calling for that action. Power said the Palestinians should get a waiver on that law.

“In the event that the Palestinians seek and obtain membership in a U.N. agency, the last thing that we want to do is to give them a double win,” she said. “And it would be a double win for them to secure a win in an agency on the one hand, and then the exclusion of the United States from that very agency, leaving the agency at the mercy of leadership from Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela – the countries that tend to fill the space when we depart.”

Later during the hearing, Power again made the case for a waiver.

“The American people and the United States are so much better off when the United States is in good standing within these organizations, defending our interests, fighting for our friends, and not surrendering the playing field to those that would like nothing more than for the United States not to be in these organizations.”

But other comments Power made were sharply critical of the Palestinian Authority; she said she has a monthly meeting with the Israelis to look out at the sea of international bodies, and threats. A friend sent another transcript of her comments, from the one hour mark of the House hearing above, in responding to Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who is the chair of the Democratic National Committee):

On the Palestinian question, I just would underscore that we will oppose attempts at upgrades in status anywhere. We are in very close touch now, we have a monthly meeting with the Israelis where we look out at the sea of international organizations and U.N. entities, including treaty bodies and treaties and so forth, and coordinate with them, and also try to understand whether they’re prioritizing in particular ways sort of– on the lines of what you’re suggesting.

The ICC is of course something that we have been absolutely adamant about. Secretary Kerry has made it very, very clear to the Palestinians, as has the President. I mean, this is something that really poses a profound threat to Israel. It is not a unilateral action that will be anything other than devastating to the peace process, which is again where all of our efforts should be placed right now. Before the peace negotiations started, between the two parties, restarted, with Secretary Kerry’s and the president’s leadership, we were fighting on every front, I mean, for sure, contesting unilateral efforts on every front, and that is what we would do in any event, because we don’t think that this is a productive approach, we don’t think there are shortcuts, and we know that this can be an effort to delegitimate Israel, at the same time it’s an effort to upgrade Palestine’s status.

I think my point on the waiver and the funding issue [to UN agencies that Palestine joins] is that the American people and the United States are so much better off when the United States is in good standing within these organizations, defending our interests, fighting for our friends, and not surrendering the playing field to those that would like nothing more than for the US not to be in these organizations. We’re not punishing the Palestinians if we cut off funding to these agencies, we’re punishing US interests. And that is why, again, we need to deter precisely the moves … The spirit behind the legislation is to deter Palestinian action, that is what we do all the time and that is what we will continue to do, but we cannot surrender the vast range of US interests in the process.

The slow, ongoing political prostitution of Samantha Power is one of the more sadder spectacles in the public arena that I have witnessed. She, who was so early with a clear conscience about the situation, sold herself – willing – to people like Boteach and Foxman for nothing but power.

“he, who was so early with a clear conscience about the situation, sold herself – willing – to people like Boteach and Foxman for nothing but power.”

She’s been a careerist all along–“A Problem From Hell” is mainly about US sins of omission and not our sins of commission. An intellectually honest book about US foreign policy and genocide would have had chapters on Guatemala, Bangladesh, East Timor, Indonesia, and also at least some references to our support for mass murderers whose crimes didn’t necessarily meet the strict definition of “genocide”. She focused on our sins of omission because it’s a safe topic–the Washington world loves to be told, as she actually says in her book, that American statesmen are too naive to understand the nature of real evil in the world. They like to be told that sometimes America needs to be more forthright and interventionist in its policies. They don’t like to be told that they are potential candidates for war crimes trials. If she’d written an honest book she wouldn’t be Samantha Power, the conscience of mainstream Washington. She’d be a pariah.

It was entirely predictable that if she finally got a position in government she’d toe the line on the I/P conflict.

USA’s Shielding Israel from the ICC at all cost – is really little else than SELF-DEFENCE
Re Donald says: April 6, 2014 at 3:58 pm
…. (American statesmen) They like to be told that sometimes America needs to be more forthright and interventionist in its policies.They don’t like to be told that they ((added: themselves)) are potential candidates for war crimes trials. . …..

EXACTLY.
Here comes the raison d’etre for the ‘Special Relationship’ :
Much more than protecting Israel from any devastating verdict by the ICC, the main underlying reason for the USA is to protect ITSELF.

The ICC would have to examine a vast range of war crime issues and other major violations of international laws e.g. targeted assassinations, drone killings, torture, administrative detentions, ignoring a multitude of international conventions and a vast range of fundamental Human Rights (e.g. children rights, religious rights) , Rights of refugees and asylum seekers, etc….
Virtually all these crimes are issues which (eventually) will be examined by the ICC. In the course of which it is virtually impossible to overlook that it has been the United States which not only used its VETO-power to safeguard Israel’s impunity status. BUT that on almost all the above issues, the USA will be sitting on The Hague’s bench of the accused in their OWN RIGHT.

Not infrequently even Israeli politicians and journalists have hinted quite explicitly that what Israel has been and is doing respectively are accused of is nothing else than what the USA has done and is doing in the first place. Giving the precedential examples, starting from settlements and ethnic cleaning at the beginnings of both their respective histories.

That is why there is no “daylight” between the two “allies in war crimes”.
That is what ties the two culprits together at the hip.
That is what makes monthly meetings and closest co-ordination with the Israelis where we look out at the sea of international organizations and U.N. entities, including treaty bodies and treaties and so forth,… necessary.
That is what makes Samantha say:The ICC is of course something that we have been absolutely adamant about. Secretary Kerry has made it very, very clear to the Palestinians, as has the President. I mean, this is something that really poses a profound threat to Israel.

The implicit threat to the USA that their own ugly foreign policy and sins of the past and present will be exposed at the same time, Samantha accidently forgot to mention.

USA’s Shielding Israel from the ICC at all cost – is really little else than SELF-DEFENCE

Re Donald says: April 6, 2014 at 3:58 pm
…. (American statesmen) They like to be told that sometimes America needs to be more forthright and interventionist in its policies.They don’t like to be told that they ((added: themselves)) are potential candidates for war crimes trials. . …..

EXACTLY.

Here comes the raison d’etre for the ‘Special Relationship’ :
Much more than protecting Israel from any devastating verdict by the ICC, the main underlying reason for the USA is to protect ITSELF.
The ICC would have to examine a vast range of war crime issues and other major violations of international laws e.g. targeted assassinations, drone killings, torture, administrative detentions, ignoring a multitude of international conventions and a vast range of fundamental Human Rights (e.g. children rights, religious rights) , Rights of refugees and asylum seekers, etc….

Virtually all these crimes are issues which (eventually) will be examined by the ICC. In the course of which it is virtually impossible to overlook that it has been the United States which not only used its VETO-power to safeguard Israel’s impunity status. BUT that on almost all the above issues, the USA will be sitting on The Hague’s bench of the accused in their OWN RIGHT.

Not infrequently even Israeli politicians and journalists have hinted quite explicitly that what Israel has been and is doing respectively are accused of is nothing else than what the USA has done and is doing in the first place. Giving the precedential examples, starting from settlements and ethnic cleaning at the beginnings of both their respective histories.

That is why there is no “daylight” between the two “allies in war crimes”.
That is what ties the two culprits together at the hip.
That is what makes monthly meetings and closest co-ordination with the Israelis where we look out at the sea of international organizations and U.N. entities, including treaty bodies and treaties and so forth,… necessary

That is what makes Samantha say:The ICC is of course something that we have been absolutely adamant about. Secretary Kerry has made it very, very clear to the Palestinians, as has the President. I mean, this is something that really poses a profound threat to Israel.

The implicit threat to the USA that their own ugly foreign policy and sins of the past and present will be exposed at the same time, Samantha accidently forgot to mention.

so·ci·o·path [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]
noun Psychiatry.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

And to further clarify the definition:
an·ti·so·cial [an-tee-soh-shuhl, an-tahy-]
adjective
opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted: antisocial behavior.

Much has been written about the rise of sociopaths to positions of power in our society, and indeed to positions of power around the globe. It is difficult to believe one could achieve these levels of power and influence and be in possession of what most of us consider a “normal” conscience. Power is only one in a long list of examples of “progressives” willing to sacrifice the lives of others in order to advance their own careers and agendas. And she is a minor player who may only be mildly afflicted by this disorder. Imagine the level of derangement necessary to order the overthrow or invasion of entire countries, or to order hundreds of drone attacks on “suspected” militants.

Obviously facing the stern ladies of the House appropriations Committee it wouldn’t make much sense to try to change their preconceptions. Would maybe the wrong context? All she wants is make sure she gets her funds.

Her argument not to cut them never mind what the Palestinians do, was quite good. You would make them win twice. Look, you know who would fill the empty space when the US leaves: Russia, Cuba, Venezuela. I forgot the exact countries listed, but I guess that is pretty close.

A threat to Israel? How can the Palestinian threat of going to ICC be a threat to Israel unless — OMG ! — Israel has been (can it be?, Oh!, say not so, Samantha!) doing criminal stuff? Oh, say not so, Samantha, say not so. Here is a high USA official accusing Israel of at least arguably criminal behavior! This is indeed newsworthy!

And devastating to the peace-process? Well, why should that be so? Cannot Israel (and PA) do two things at once? Cannot they chew gum and walk at the same time? Cannot they appear before ICC at the same time they do whatever it is they do during those interminable PP sessions?

As to “doing two things at once”: My error. I forgot that the PP has dual purpose. First is to look (perpetually and in perpetuity) as if the parties (and the USA) are negotiating for peace, without actually doing so; but the second purpose was that the PP would be the ONLY thing the Palestinians would be doing — but not, as we know, the only thing that the Israelis would be doing. so going to the UN is (by this definition of the PP) abandoning the PP.

It’s mind boggling isn’t it? Imagine Obama saying that to Abbas’s face during their recent photo-op at the White House? They US policy is to f#%k the Palestinians over and that they would continue to do so.

I only wish that the PA had the political and PR acumen to take these statements from Power and gold them up to the world as the reason why the US is part of the problem and cannot be regarded as an honest broker.

Power deserves to be utterly humiliated and embarrassed on the world stage.

Power “The ICC is of course something that we have been absolutely adamant about. Secretary Kerry has made it very, very clear to the Palestinians, as has the President. I mean, this is something that really poses a profound threat to Israel.”

This would not be a threat this would be a means of holding Israel accountable for decades of human rights crimes. The U.S. including Powers and the Obama administration continue to give Israel cover while they build more illegal settlement units. Enough…

Have you ever heard Powers say or do anything that would indicate in any way shape or form that she even thinks about being a fair broker?

At the UN hearings having to do with Russia’s aggressive actions in Crimea Powers strong words about “territorial integrity” the breaking of international laws regarding sovereignty were absolutely absurd. Does anyone think that when Kerry or Powers bring up these issues that they are unable to recognize how incredibly hypocritical their words are and how the whole world sees this?

Lowey mentions that during Powers nominations hearing she had said she would try to change “eliminate anti-Israel bias” at the UN. Israel deserves all of those biases based on their actions. Telling that Powers came right out and said she would be Israel’s lackey at the UN. Guess that would be the case for all U.S. Ambassadors to the UN.

Powers must be getting the effort to “eliminate anti Israel bias” right back in her face. One would think an honest broker (which she is clearly not) would actually confront Israel on being in violation of more UN resolutions than any other nation, Israel’s persistent unwillingness to sign the NPT and the Chemical Weapons Treaty, human rights crimes, unwillingness to allow international observers via U.S. UN votes to block any effort. That is what the international community has continued to point out at the UN.

Powers acts like the attitude towards Israel is unwarranted. What an Israeli lackey she is.

Israel’s persistent unwillingness to sign the NPT and the Chemical Weapons Treaty

If Israel were to be signing those treaties today it would be signing them as a nuclear power with the job of enforcing non-proliferation. Which would mean disclosure. Here is what we know.

The Israelis developed weapons in the early 1960s.
They had a 3rd stage warhead by the late 1970s.
They developed the capacity for airborne penetration of Soviet defenses in the 1970s.
In the early 1990s they adopted USA guidance systems.
They already today possess a rocketry program capable of a few thousand miles.
In the early 2000s they started work on an rocketry program which is today successful.

So let’s just say the obvious. Israel like has, and on the off chance they aren’t are within 5 years will have ICBMs. That’s over a generation more advanced than what Iran is working on, what Iraq was working on. They likely are already passed nations like France and the UK in terms of nuclear power and today are a distant 4th after USA, Russia, China.

Richard Nixon understood there was no reasonable way to get Israel to abandon being a nuclear power. The goal of the United States has been for Israel to have a low profile on this issue so as not to encourage proliferation. And so far that’s been successful. Were Israel to join the NPT and publicly announce where they stood the result on the arab street be terror that Israel is so completely dominant. There would be a demand for Saudi Arabia and Egypt to start a massive weapons program.

So let’s just say the obvious. Israel like has, and on the off chance they aren’t are within 5 years will have ICBMs. That’s over a generation more advanced than what Iran is working on, what Iraq was working on.

Not really. It’s a poorly kept secret that Russia are assisting Iran with their missile programs. Russia a a good 10 years more advanced than anything the US and Israel has. Most of Israel’s missile technology is stolen from the US anyway.

The goal of the United States has been for Israel to have a low profile on this issue so as not to encourage proliferation.

Only an idiot would buy that. Israel’s nuclear program was never a secret,. The only reason the US plays along with Israel’s farcical nuclear ambiguity B.S. is to :

1. Maintain Israel conning under scrutiny under the Symington Amendment.

2 Maintain some level of deniability while the US and it’s allies maintain their hypocritical stance on states like Iran.

The suggestion therefore that coming clean would lead Saudi Arabia and Egypt to start a massive weapons program is therefore utterly bogus.

AllArab states in the region, as well as Iran have repeatedly Ed for a nuclear free region and Israel alone rejects that motion.

Has anyone heard the latest from Bennett? “We are currently preparing war crimes charges against Abu Mazen (Abbas) on two [different] rationales…” Yeah, that kind of talk is sure to keep him at the negotiating table.

Only the problem is that in order to get Abbas on war crimes Israel would have to resign the Rome Statute, which would open their people up to similar accusations which they don’t want. But don’t worry about that, Naphtali, bring it on!

Then there is this: “I think my point on the waiver and the funding issue [to UN agencies that Palestine joins] is that the American people and the United States are so much better off when the United States is in good standing within these organizations…”

Translation: If we defund them then we won’t have any means to apply blackmail or other monetary pressure!

abc, I heard new today that 2 of the punitive options Israelis are considering are to suspend providing cell phone services to the Palestinians and to hold back on tax remittances due to the Palestinians and apply the funds directly against the Palestinians’ unpaid electricity bills.

Israel has shown it’s vindictive, mean side, once again, and will show just how much power it has over it’s victims, by making their lives even more miserable, zionist style. It makes me wonder if Hitler felt that same sense of sadistic pleasure, when he wielded his powers over helpless people.

Abbas can only accept jurisdiction for ICC crimes committed on the territory of Palestine. It will be a national Palestinian holiday when Israel joins the ICC, so that he can request prosecution of the crimes committed against Palestine from Israel’s territory too.

With Power’s threat to walk away from the UN and the ICC we sink further into the septic muck of appeasement to small desert country with no strategic value to the US. Historians will find a gold mine of intrigue in the Special Relationship and how the world’s only super power sacrificed a good measure of its influence and respectability at the alter of ethnic supremecy in Israel. A national disgrace that points out how little we’ve learned and how weak our committment is towards racial equality and equity under the law.

The US wouldn’t do it. It tried along with Israel in tow to intimidate UNESCO for having accepted the Palestinians and failed. Last November with $240 million in unpaid UNESCO dues, both the US and Israel lost their voting rights in the organization. UNESCO is wobbling with 20% of its budget missing, but the US is also paying the price for being absent in UNESCO voting. As to Israel, there is no difference because it already had a shady reputation.

So there is no chance of the US walking away from more UN agencies; in Power’s own words explaining that this should not happen, taken from the text above:

“… I think my point on the waiver and the funding issue [to UN agencies that Palestine joins] is that the American people and the United States are so much better off when the United States is in good standing within these organizations, defending our interests, fighting for our friends, and not surrendering the playing field to those that would like nothing more than for the US not to be in these organizations. We’re not punishing the Palestinians if we cut off funding to these agencies, we’re punishing US interests. “

The US is asking the Palestinians to hold off on bringing the war criminals to the ICC in the name of the peace process RIP. The US never signed up to the ICC. If Israel punishes ‘Abbas someone rlse prolly the EU will be expected to pony up for the shortfall. It really looks as though the peace charade has run out of road with Zionism exposed as the debased ideology we know and love it to be.

The US is asking the Palestinians to hold off on bringing the war criminals to the ICC in the name of the peace process RIP.

Of course it is. Israel’s raison d’être is to violate international law to bring about the changes it desires or maintain the status quo. An encounter between Israel and the ICC would be like a train wreck.

See for example, “Israel Pushes To Change International Laws Of War After Damning Gaza Report”. At the time, experts agreed that when Netanyahu said he wanted to change the laws of war, it was a tacit admission that Israel had violated them. But there is a general principle of international law of very ancient origin, ex injuria jus non oritur (law does not arise from injustice), which prevents unlawful conduct from leading to any such change in the law.

Power says if the Palestinians go to the ICC they won’t succeed. Surely that isn’t credible.

If she really believed that they have no chance of success, then the US regime wouldn’t be “absolutely adamant” about making it “very, very clear to the Palestinians” that “this is something that really poses a profound threat to Israel.”

I’m pretty certain that Abbas views it as an “all or nothing”, last ditch proposition anyway. If the ICC fails to act, the Palestinians can demand Israeli citizenship and the vote with a great deal justification. They will have shown the absolute bankruptcy of the proposition of pursuing negotiations with the UN, the US, and Israel or pursuing legal remedies through either of the international courts.

Kay Granger: You know the provisions of US law that prohibit funding if the Palestinians obtain member status at the UN and its agencies such as UNESCO outside of an agreement with Israel.

(Is that a Texan drawl?)

Maybe I didn’t pay too much attention on the precise context of the decision to stop funding the UNESCO. But these seem to be early shackles by congress on the “peace process trade:

These are not idle threats. Back in the earliest days of the peace process, when Congress was not entirely behind White House efforts related to Madrid (and subsequently Oslo), Congress passed a number of pieces of legislation intended to block normalization of Palestinian relations and activities in the international community. These included the following provision of law — which notably does not include authority for the president to waive the requirements of the law, even in cases where vital U.S. national security interests are at stake. 22 USC 287e as amended by PL 101-246

MEMBERSHIP OF THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION IN UNITED NATIONS
AGENCIES.

(a) PROHIBITION- No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.

(b) TRANSFER OR REPROGRAMMING- Funds subject to the prohibition contained in subsection (a) which would be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof (but for that prohibition) are authorized to remain available until expended and may be reprogrammed or transferred to any other account of the Department of State or the Agency for International Development to carry out the general purposes for which such funds were authorized.

That must have been the most effective “stick” over the decades, what were the carrots, were there any.

Rep Lowey blames Abbas and the PA over and over again for these breakdowns. Not even a whisper about Israel’s continued building of illegal settlements during the process the unwillingness to release agreed upon prisoners which ignited the recent breakdown. Not a whisper out of the Reps or Powers….slimy hypocrites. All Israel’s Reps.

“The danger of peace has been averted”, was the message that one of the Likud Party’s senior ministers texted on April 1 to some of his associates shortly after it became apparent that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had submitted a request to be inducted into 15 UN bodies with a state status.

Taxi, the true nature of the al-Monitor article appeared towards the end with a plea for the release of Pollard and sticking plugs about released Palestinian prisoners being “dozens, hundreds and thousands of brutal murderers — terrorists with gallons of innocent civilian blood on their hands”. The guy (Caspit) writes for the J Post and also hates African asylum seekers, so he must surely hate Palestinians and his comments about them in the article were in general uncomplimentary.

I know, Walid, I read the article. I was more interested in sharing the quote, “The danger of peace has been averted” – showing that the zio ministers are so public and blatant with their anti peace stance. The writer of the article, like all zios these days especially lib ones, doesn’t know whether to whimper or howl – from desperation: the fact that the zio jig is up.

Sunstein is vile as well, with his totalitarian “cognitive infiltration” proposals:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

“Why do people keep dragging Ireland into it? She has nothing to do with Ireland, and hasn’t for a long time.”RoHa.

I am Irish and live in Ireland.I, like many other Irish people follow Irish Media and Samantha Power gets way too much coverage and unfortunately it is always glowing and often touts her so called “Human Rights” record.

So yes , it has something to do with Ireland when this war criminal is given accolades and praise when she should be shunned.

Power “In the event that the Palestinians seek and obtain membership in a U.N. agency, the last thing that we want to do is to give them a double win,” What a nasty despicable creature she is. She now thinks the Palestinians are the enemy. For God’s sake Abbas go for all 63 UN agencies, give that bitch both barrels.

Susan Rice was even more despicable, when she reacted to the Palestinians bid for partial recognition the last time at the UN. Her speech was mean, insulting, and she lashed out at the triumphant Palestinians, like a sore loser. I felt embarrassed that our country was represented by her, and that there are many like her, carrying the water for a lousy parasitic nation like Israel.

When compared with effective diplomats who are well attuned to nuance and
potential for negotiation – think Sergei Lavrov, Vitaly Churkin and Liu Jienj (China) – she is abrasive, shrilly outspoken and incapable of developing positive
reprocities with key players on the other side. Fortunately for the Palestinian
requests, she can be expected to alienate any country which has free choice in
their response to expanding/enhancing the Palestinian presence in the UN and,
also, to be so overt in her bludgoning of those who are beholden to the US, that
the blowback is obvious and well reported outside the US media. Her “right to protect” stance, given the situations in Iraq, Libya, etc. has entered the parlance
as the standard, sarcastic phrase to underscore the hypocrisy of the designated war effort.

If “Palestine” becomes a full state as part of the two State Solution, “Palestine” will still become part of those bodies, right? So can the Israeli State be 100% against “Palestine” joining the UN agencies as a rule? Or have Israeli leaders ever said that they are OK with “Palestine” eventually joining the ICC?

Just think. Even if you have a two State Solution, even one favorable to the Israelis, “Palestine” will still be part of those bodies, right? And then when the Israelis abuse the Palestinians, will “Palestine” have a right and desire to seek international redress? How would that work out? Or does the Israeli State have no desire for “Palestine” to become a real state, but only a compliant autonomous area? The only way is for the Israeli state to continue to deny millions of people their rights.

So can the Israeli State be 100% against “Palestine” joining the UN agencies as a rule?

There is a logic behind it, albeit flawed.

The argument Power and he I’ll would make is that the Palestinians would be free to join these agencies once an a political settlement has been reached.

This is where the peace process sham comes into play. It’s purpose has always been to keep it going indefinitely.

Failing that, the fallback position is they even if a settlement were to be reached, the Palestinians would have been pressured to bargain away all their territorial claims anyway, so there would be fewer complaints to take to the ICC.

More than that, James, it sees the establishment of a Palestinian state as the final nail in the greater israel coffin, and the first nail is the little israel coffin. Assimilation into the Arab region is a terrifying prospect for zionists, which is what would eventually and organically happen if a stable period of peace were to pass in the holy land and the region..

It is simply not possible to fulfill the zionist’s ‘dream’ in the middle east. Zionism has arrived at the brick wall that the zio founders stupidly never anticipated.

Ben Gurion opposed the take over of the West bank, but i am having trouble finding much on this except a brief mention that he worried it would lead to binationalism.

No, he knew perfectly well that it would lead to an Arab majority that would abolish the statutes on Law of Return and Nationality and keep the millions of Jewish immigrants he needed out of the country See “The Armistice Agreements with the Arab States”, in Netanel Lorch (ed), Major Knesset Debates 1948-1981, Vol. 2, JCPA/University of America Press, 1993, and especially his remarks starting on printed page 512 (pdf file page 93 of 186) link to jcpa.org

That remained the policy or maximalist position of the governing Labor party and it’s coalitions regarding the Arab demographic problem. The current US peace talks reflect very little difference between the plans outlined by Abba Eban in 1967 to keep Palestine politically isolated, demilitarized, economically integrated with Israel, and out of the UN, except for a token representative without portfolio. This would all be justified on the basis of Israel’s security psychosis:

442. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State

New York, September 23, 1967, 1711Z.

950. Re: Israeli Views on Middle East.

In dinner conversation with me Sept 19 Eban outlined current Israeli policy flowing from internal debate during summer and recent series of cabinet meetings. Essential points he made are set out below. Rafael and Harman present on Israeli side, and Sisco, Buffum and Pedersen on US side.

Eban said most important thing was that they had decided to take current stands on position of security principle rather than on territorial basis and to keep their options open for future negotiations. Implications that their position had hardened since last June was not true, he said. However, if Israel were compelled to state its specific policy publicly at this time they would have to be stated in a maximalist position. Israel’s general position was that in the absence of a situation of peace Israel would have to maintain its positions on basis of considerations of national security but in a peace agreement with Arabs they could be in a flexible negotiating position.

With respect to Egypt, Eban said their idea was that border would follow the international frontier. There would be an international presence in Straits of Tiran to assure freedom of navigation, possibly of major maritime powers in Gulf or something on the shore. There would be a demilitarization of the Sinai. Suez Canal would be open to ships of all nations on basis of “declaratory” assurances (i.e., without some external presence). Demilitarization of Sinai would be assured by some sort of international presence, possibly an enlarged UNTSO type of operation, and possibly including UAR and Israeli troops. Idea of demilitarization of Sinai was difficult to achieve if UAR stayed in Gaza Strip.

Gaza territory was also security problem for Israel. Israel would like have the territory without the population but did not see how that could come about. He intimated there may even be an exchange of territory along the international frontier in favor of Egypt in return for Gaza Strip going to Israel. He thought Egypt might even be glad to be rid of Gaza Strip. Another possibility apparently under consideration was some form of international authority of Gaza Strip. (Eban noted this had been discussed in 1956 with US and that he had memcon with Dulles in his files about it.)

On Syria, he said it was hard to contemplate an early peace agreement as long as Syrian Govt retained its present complexion. There had been a discussion of a demilitarization arrangement on Syrian Heights similar to idea re Sinai. Conclusion, however, which he shared, was that this would not be safe and that some territorial adjustments would have to be made.

Re Jerusalem, the Holy Moslem quarter would create perpetual emotional religious problems as long as it under Israeli control. GOI therefore had in mind arrangement which would put it under Moslem control and sovereignty. Rest of city was now united, and Arab inhabitants were free to travel throughout Israel. There could be some arrangement which would insure free Jordanian access to and participation in economic life of city.

West Bank presented particularly difficult problems. Incorporation of West Bank into Israel, with its large Arab population, would completely transform Israel’s national existence and reason for being. An Israeli demographic expert had estimated that at present rate of population growth this would produce an Arab majority in Israel within 15 years. In any case it would cause a total reshaping of Israeli politics, as Arab votes were sought, and thus produce alterations in structure of Israel that they did not desire. Neither could Arabs be incorporated into Israel without granting them Israeli citizenship. This would not be permitted by international community nor would it be acceptable to Israeli people themselves.

Eban said they had also given thought to establishment of separate, autonomous Palestinian state on West Bank. This also has serious drawbacks. Days of autonomous dependent regions had really passed. Creation of Palestinian state might simply increase irredentist desires. There would be yet another Arab state on Arab scene. In a year or two it would ask for UN membership, and it would be admitted. Such prospects did not look attractive. On the other hand, now that Israelis for first time had opportunity to visit areas of historic significance to them, it would be difficult for their citizens to understand govt simply turning the area back. Sort of thinking they were therefore thinking of would include two elements: (a) demilitarization of West Bank, with a UN inspection system; and (b) some form of economic, customs or travel arrangements which would permit access to and larger cooperation with the area. He referred to possibility of a free port on Mediterranean for Jordan as a move in same direction. I believe he also had in mind some border adjustments for security purposes, as he referred to Israeli security psychosis resulting from fact entire population was in range of Arab guns but he was not precise about what they might be.

Thank you for sharing, Hostage.
It sounds like even in 1967 the Israelis did not really have a plan for the West Bank. They did not see absorbing it as an option because they felt they would have to give palestinians rights. But they did not want to give Palestinians even autonomy because they worried it would mean “irredentism”, ie. a word meaning in this context that Palestinians would want their land back once they have a governing body of their own.

Their conclusion is that instead they want the West Bank to be demilitarized and have economic and travel “arrangements”. Without even autonomy or absorption, it means a kind of permanent limbo status where people do not have political self-determination rights.

Thank you for pointing to Ben Gurion’s 1949 speech where he disagrees with taking the West Bank. He concludes that if the rest of the land were conquered, then they would form one state and it would have to address a Palestinian majority. So he felt this way for a long time.

He then says Deir Yassin was a needed event to achieve a majority, but avoids the issue of whether they could have just kept their normal majority in the 1947 lines without the Deir Yassin incident. But why does he condemn Deir Yassin then n p. 514? Maybe I am misreading something?

He then says Deir Yassin was a needed event to achieve a majority, but avoids the issue of whether they could have just kept their normal majority in the 1947 lines without the Deir Yassin incident. But why does he condemn Deir Yassin then n p. 514?

That’s an example of pilpul, using “odd” or “strange” arguments that come “out of left field” in order to turn the tables on others. By the time he finished re-framing the debate, he had segued into blaming the Arabs and the victims for the state of necessity and assigning a share of the blame on his political adversaries in the Revisionist wing of the Zionist movement for unwisely trying to “bite-off more than they could chew”.

He was being deceitful, of course, since the Haganah had assisted the Irgun’s attack on Deir Yassin. It was located in the Corpus Seperatum and Ben Gurion himself had instructed Moshe Sneh not to interfere with the Irgun or Lehi when the Jerusalem revolt originally started. The Haganah was up to their eyeballs in acts of terror, like the bombing of the Semiramis Hotel.

During an earlier debate on the subject, Ben Gurion was berating Begin and claiming credit for averting the danger to the State of Israel presented by the Altalena Affair and for putting an end to the armed insurrection in Jerusalem. The former Haganah Commander, Moshe Sneh, interrupted Ben Gurion and reminded him he was complicit in the insurrection in Jerusalem: “You sent me the cable not to harm the IZL!”. MK G. Meyer responded by threatening him (ala Anat Kam/Uri Blau) : “Moshe Sneh, don’t threaten us with publication!” — See the Minutes of the 8th Sitting of the First Knesset, 8 March 1949, in Netanel Lorach, “Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981″ Volume 2, JCPA/University Press, 1993, page 445. http://www.jcpa.org/text/KnessetDebatesVol2.pdf

What was the insurrection in Jerusalem that you are referring to? Was it a revolt against the British in 1947?

It was a terror campaign perpetrated jointly by the Jewish Agency, Irgun, and Lehi that began before the UNSCOP hearings. There was a brief intermission, and after the UN decision on the question, it was resumed again. None of the participants ever accepted the internationalization of Jerusalem. It included the bombings of the King David Hotel, the Semiramis Hotel, movie theaters, market places, attacks on the Arab quarter, Deir Yassin, and other targets in Jerusalem or the Jerusalem district (Corpus Separatum).

In case no one noticed, the Israeli Right is growing and their position is not a democratic nor two state solution. Please anyone (Hophmi, Dimadok) correct me if I am wrong about their view on the Two State Solution, because I would like to be. About half of Israelis, ie. the right wing, does not want a Two State Solution.

So the problem is the Israelis? Well, not just. About a similar portion of the American Jewish community does not want a two state solution either. And the right wing portion who does not is also the ones who have the passion, politics, and resources on this issue. And it is that alliance that keeps things rolling. The Christian Zionists as a collective generally supports whatever the Israeli government does.

So let’s please be clear about where this situation is headed, please. It is not much going in the direction of much of a two state solution.

Even if you combine the Arab countries, the US and European left and libertarians, JStreet, Mondoweiss, Palestinians, most US politicians, and everyone else who accepts the principle of democracy for Palestinians in the West Bank, the actual force they create on the issue is weak by comparison. But that is still important – it’s been enough to stop total longterm conquest of Jordan and to postpone the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza at least this far, along with humanitarian support for Palestinian refugees.

I know some activists take the position of defunding the PA. I am not sure they go as far as asking to defund the refugee camps. But I would wait for a self-abuser of the level of Dahlan to take over the PA before asking that it be defunded.

Nothing would serve the cause of international justice more then to have the likes of Putin and his ‘bloks’, the Arab kings and princes, European Jew-Hating leftists(which have always been there anyway), Middle-Asian/Euro dictators and African warlords, Persian theocrats along with assorted SAmerican Autocrats, Communists and etc* sit in judgement of the Israeli ‘war’ criminals before the ICC. Making an example of Jews is the ultimate statement by the chic and trendy euro- ‘court’. After all…up until now what have they done? The Serbians which served the cause of their Muslim victims and a couple of bedraggled African warlords? It is not very difficult to feel the seething members here chomping on the bit at the anticipation and excitement of the realization of their ultimate fantasy. It makes for good theater and after all, with so little to show the ICC has to start somewhere.y

*none of whom are perceived to be guilty of ICC crimes though I could start with Chechnya and go down a long list from laws against gays to locking up reporters to small things like…..starving over 20 million of your own people through forced famine. But by all means-go after that ‘sh__y little…’ Israeli state and feel proud.

DaBakr, something wrong in your formula here; mostly all with exception to 1 or 2 of the parties you mentioned that would sit in judgement of Israel are actually fans of Israel, so you have nothing to worry about there. On the other hand your description of Israel is accurate but I doubt there is anything chic or trendy about putting war criminals on trial.

DaBakr
This defense along the lines of ” We’re not the only criminals. There are others. Why pick on us? ” does nothing but make your case even worse. It’s staggering that you don’t see the stupidity of it.

In the WAPO today there is an article about Power saying “She had offended some Jewish leaders, including the celebrity rabbi Shmuley Boteach, years earlier by saying that a massive protection force should be dispatched if there were ever an impending genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Using the word “genocide” must have offended their collective conscience. Anyway, she had to do a lot of pitiful kowtowing and cringing (mea culpa) in order to beg forgiveness just like Christie with Adelson. They call Botech a celebrity Rabbi but he acts more like a clown. His acolyte is said to be the new Senator Cory Booker. Power may just be a practical politician who realizes that they cannot get anything done without the approval of people like Adelson and Boteach who sadly have the tacit approval of millions of Zionists and Evangelicals.

I read just fine, thank you very much. The comment was about Ms. Power being the voice of “Jewish money”. N’est pa?
Your knee-jerking again looks rather silly.

Apparently you can’t read in either English or French. All of those “charities” and major tax-exempt organizations that are spending $28 billion on Israel and lining up the big bundlers for Ms. Power’s boss, identify themselves using the term “Jewish” in the names of their organizations, not “Zionist”. It’s perfectly okay to discuss that fact and it brings nothing but discredit upon you to suggest that it’s an anti-semitic trope.

The access and all-eyes-on-her/him must be what’s so seductive to new officials. Representatives hit the DC floor fund-raising for their two-year renewal. The unelected (appointed) have their heady elevation to maintain, and every minute in DC is a reminder. The silence their words are met in. The best tables. The limos automatically arranged to get them to insider parties, and the slight bow the White House gate gives in lieu of ID.

Ain’t no way fuckin’ policy gonna’ rip that up, babee. Trappings contain their own restraint.

“she said she has a monthly meeting with the Israelis to look out at the sea of international bodies, and threats.”
Those are not words of a friend but a member of one team of two working together to defeat the Palestinians. What a surprise must this come to those naive and gullible enough to think the US is just a broker and an honest one at that.

“The American people and the United States are so much better off when the United States is in good standing within these organizations, defending our interests, fighting for our friends, and not surrendering the playing field to those that would like nothing more than for the United States not to be in these organizations.”

I guess everybody that follows Hostage here cannot avoid to get interested in the concise history of the conflict and the parts played by the UN but much more America.

There is a recent empirical by an Italian scholar, which actually looks interesting:

This book provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of the United Nations intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1947. In his structured and exhaustive analysis, the author presents a long term perspective on the UN intervention in the conflict and explains its evolution during the last sixty years. He draws on a wealth of quantitative data to provide a complete picture of resolutions addressed to the Arab-Israeli conflict by the General Assembly and the Security Council, the mediation activity, and the UN peace missions in the area. Through his analysis, Di Mauro addresses such questions as:

Why did the United Nations have different involvement and efforts of interventions in the conflict?
How did the role of the UN change during the dispute, and why did it change?
Is there still a role for the UN in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process?

Offering a contribution to both to the studies of UN intervention in conflict resolution and, more broadly, to the UN role in the international system, The UN and the Arab-Israeli Conflict will be of great interest to International Relation scholars and students, but also appreciable by historians, political scientists, methodologists and all the social scientists interested in the Palestine question and the United Nations.

There is a recent empirical by an Italian scholar, which actually looks interesting:

Danilo di Mauro, The UN and the Arab-Israeli Conflict American Hegemony and UN Intervention since 1947

Thanks, I’ll take a look. I ran into Lorenzo Kamel recently at Opinio Juris. He is another Italian, who is a visiting fellow at Harvard University’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies. We have been busy filing one another’s inboxes with research on various aspects of the subject ever since. I highly recommend anything he’s written. Google is your friend until I can assemble a list of links.

The US shows it’s true colors once again – and it is ugly. Despite getting a big slap in the face from Israel, and having to put up with Israel’s lack of cooperation, bribing Israel to keep the peace talks going, with promises of a disgusting Israeli spy, Pollard, to be released, and the endless insults thrown at Kerry and the US, what do you know, the US still kisses up to Israel, by being against the Palestinians going to the UN.
The US should do the right thing and support these long suffering people, who lose so much on daily basis, and stop supporting the disgusting occupier that lacks any sense of doing the right thing for their victims.

By centering on a contest of ad hominem vituperation against Ms. Power, the responders’ echo-chamber posts capture a bit of the farce that will play out if the PA actually moves in an ICC direction. Start with the PA’s simulacrum statehood status, continue with Israel’s non-membership, and proceed to the ICC’s own jurisdictional issues (limitations, intervening in the affairs of a state that has a competent judiciary, etc.). Suppose all these are cleared away and both principals are aboard. Now recall that the PA is the nominal ruler of “WB” under the Oslo accords, which oblige it to renounce violence, cooperate with Israel in prosecuting terrorists, etc. The PA is also the nominal ruler of GS, whence tens of thousands of crimes against Israel have originated (each rocket aimed at civilians being a separate crime), not to mention the murder of Gazans. It’s got big potential for decades of theater, smaller potential for destroying the court’s own integrity, and no potential for anything remotely useful in managing, let alone ending, the I/P conflict.
So keep ripping into Ms. Power; you gotta start somewhere.

It’s got big potential for decades of theater, smaller potential for destroying the court’s own integrity, and no potential for anything remotely useful in managing, let alone ending, the I/P conflict.

Keep scraping the bottom of that barrel Naftush. You seem to have forgotten that the whole mess behind with Israel’s wars of aggression, land grab and illegal occupation. All the events that result from wars if aggression become the responsibility of the aggressor which is Israel.

Start with the PA’s simulacrum statehood status, continue with Israel’s non-membership, and proceed to the ICC’s own jurisdictional issues (limitations, intervening in the affairs of a state that has a competent judiciary, etc.). Suppose all these are cleared away and both principals are aboard.

Just to straighten you out:
1) Israel didn’t even enjoy simulacrum statehood status during WW-II and Eichmann didn’t commit any crimes in its territorial jurisdiction. The Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law that was employed to prosecute him wasn’t even adopted until 1950. Comparatively speaking, Palestine faces fewer legal hurdles or objections. The bottom line is that any state government can grant its own courts universal jurisdiction, but Palestine has both universal and territorial jurisdiction.

2) The Assembly of State Parties that drafted and ratified the Rome Statute, incorporated customary international law by references to: a) “the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict” in Article 8, “War Crimes”; and b) the customary “Definition of Aggression” contained in the annex to General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) in the new consensus amendments to Article 8 bis. The resolution has always contained an explanatory note which stipulates that the term “State” can be employed by any entity without regard to recognition by others or UN membership.

3) 138 members of the UN General Assembly, including a majority of the ICC member states, formally recognized the statehood of Palestine after President Abbas announced that he wanted upgraded states in order to pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter in order to pursue claims against Israel in the Courts and treaty bodies.

5) The fact that Israel has prevented the Courts of Palestine from functioning properly or kept its authorities from investigating and obtaining custody of the suspects, actually triggers the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC under the terms of Article 17 of the Rome Statute:

Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:

(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
…
In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.http://web.archive.org/web/20130310172833/http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

This is probably one of the strongest signs of the decline of American power , a senior ambassador turning away from the UN and threatening the Palestinians with blue murder if they try to gain their rights internationally. The absolute control a small country has over the levers of power in DC is very sad. At the time of the shutdown last October Gingrich wrote the following in the FT

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6377ec88-2b9a-11e3-a1b7-00144feab7de.html
” The founding fathers wanted to preserve freedom from the danger of dictatorship. Their immediate experience was a corrupt, overbearing government in London. Their recent history had included Cromwell’s dictatorship at the end of the English civil war. Their reading of ancient history was that power tended to degenerate from freedom to dictatorship at great speed.
It was very significant that George Washington’s favourite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, a story of one man’s courageous willingness to die for freedom. Cato becomes the last symbol of the freedoms of the Roman Republic when faced with the emerging tyranny of Julius Caesar.
If you read Addison’s play and its repetitive insistence that death is preferable to losing freedom you can better understand the courage of those who fought for eight long years for their independence. You can also appreciate better Patrick Henry’s famous oration “give me liberty or give me death”.
It was this passion for freedom as a God-given right – “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”, as the Declaration of Independence states – which gave the Americans their moral compass in designing the constitution.”

Who cares if Israel intentionally doesn’t recognize International Law! Bring on the equivalent of the Nuremberg trails and prosecute every Zionist crime inflicted on the Palestinian people and those who gave the orders for: the numerous massacres, the ethnic cleansing, destruction of property, humanitarian blockade, abuse of children’s rights and racist perpetual obstruction of justice for the refugees…you name it – PROSECUTE!!!

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.